Al-Jabri makes a statement at the bottom of page 146, which I believe is materially incorrect. He says: ما ننسخ فعل منفي ('whatever we abrogate' is a negated verb) which is not true. ما is a conditional article not a negation article in 2:106.

What he said would be a violation of Arabic grammar! The verb ننسخ is in jussive mood, indicating conditional use, and is further affirmed by the consequence verb (جواب الشرط) being in jussive mood as well (نأت), indicated by the removal of the final vowel.

More on آية The reason I believe that آية in 2:106 does not mean miracle is that abrogating a miracle does not make sense. I am convinced that naskh means abrogate or annul, and I don't find it reasonable for a miracle to be annulled. Forgotten yes, but not annulled.

I can see your point. However, I don't have a problem with the notion of "abrogating" a miracle. Firstly because I know that "naskh" means more than abrogation; it means any update. Secondly, because a new miracle from God is ever more impressive than a previous one, thus it overshadows it. That is a semantic of "naskh", IMHO, kind of like a new edition of a book.

That being said, I'm convinced, as scores of scholars past and new have concluded, that the word آية in 2:106 is referring to the Torah being replaced by the Quran. The verse is general, because God wants to establish a principle: If or when He decides to revise/update any of His signs, He brings a sign that is even better. The main reason the Quran is better than the Torah is that the Torah has been edited by the Jews while the Quran remained intact.

In this elaborate essay by Al-Tabari, there is a notable part about 'abrogating a ruling' versus 'abrogating a verse'. It's the first time I see the old school concede that having a ruling as the object of abrogation is a leap of faith that needs justification. ...I disagree with the argument that no verse can be better than another and using that to justify that abrogation applies to rulings not verses, because

1. The correct interpretation of 2:106 IMHO is that the Quran abrogated previous revelations, so we are not comparing two verses in the Quran.

2. Even if we were comparing two verses in the Quran, one could be better than the other if God so wills. What is a no-no is for us to decide than one is better than the other.

Kudos. And isn't that what the pro-abrogation scholars have done over the centuries? They decided, on the basis of narrations from non-prophets, or even on the basis of their own analysis, that a ruing of one verse is better than the ruling of another and thus abrogated it.

Only God, or, by delegation from God, His Messenger can do that and neither did.

Jamaal `Ataaya, in his book حقيقة النسخ وطلاقة النص في القرآن, page 30, makes a very interesting observation about the word آية. He noticed that the word has never been used in the Quran, in the singular, to mean anything but a sign.

Interesting observation indeed, subject to verification.

I decided to go ahead and verify it. It wasn't as hard as I thought it might be. There are exactly 48 occurrences of the word آية in the Quran. Of these, only eight may possibly mean a verse! These are 2:106, 16:101 and the other six are

And I think the reader may agree that the probability that these six mean a sign is more than that it means a verse. If so, then the likelihood that the same is true in 2:106 and 16:101 becomes easy to conclude.

A very elaborate essay about the interpretation of 2:105-106 by early Muslims. It is very long, but is worth keeping. Here is the source. I found out on the web that it is taken from Al-Tabari (part 1, pages 170-173).

In this excerpt, At-Tabari reports the differing opinions on whether 2:106 implies that the Prophet (PBUH) was caused to forget some verses from the Quran. Those who rejected the notion argued that if the Prophet (PBUH) did forget any verse, it is not likely that everybody else who memorized it would also forget it!

Others argued that this verse,

proves that no forgetting was done though it was possible had God willed it. I hate to disagree, but 17:86 seems to refer to the entire Quran, so using it to prove the point is not helpful.

Abu-Ja`far (An-Nahhaas?) disagrees and cites a hadeeth narrated by Anas Ibn Maalik that seventy Sahaaba who died in a battle and were burried in the Ma`oona Well and that there was a verse being recited about them that said, "Tell our folk for us that we have met our Lord and that He was pleased with us and gave us what pleases us". He said that was "lifted." He did not authenticate this hadeeth. I did however find it in both Al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

That would give much credence to the notion that there were verses of the Quran that were recited at one point but then removed. However, it is important to notice that it was Anas who said that, not the Prophet (PBUH). Therefore, it is quite possible that Anas thought it was Quran but it actually wasn't.

In this excerpt, Al-Qurtubi reports on the "second type of abrogation", as he called it, namely, removal without replacement. He argues that this type of abrogation is warranted by the Arabic language and possible in the Quran because of

My humble comment is that if a word may mean something in the language, it doesn't follow that that particular meaning of it was used by God in the Quran. But more relevantly, verse 22:52 does not imply whether the abrogation that God made was replaced. We only know that the resulting verse is flawless.

Al-Qurtubi continues by citing a hadeeth, narrated by Sahl ibn Haneef and reported by Al-Anbaari, in which Sahl was struggling to recite some verses and for the life in him he couldn't. He went to the Prophet (PBUH) to tell him about that and found two more folks making the same statement. The Prophet (PBUH) said to them, "It is part of what was lifted yesterday."

Al-Qurtubi does not authenticate this hadeeth, so I looked it up. I found only one mention of it. It is authenticated by Ibn Taymiya in his book مجموع الفتاوى, volume 17, page 186.

That is a strong evidence for the notion, because it attributes the words to the Prophet (PBUH). Problem is why this hadeeth was not mentioned, let alone authenticated, by anybody else, especially the top six Hadeeth reporters?

In this excerpt, Al-Qurtubi mentions briefly a hadeeth by `Aa'isha (RA) in which she said that Chapter 33 was once as long as Chapter 2. The excerpt does not narrate the hadeeth fully or authenticate it, so I looked it up. I could not find it narrated by `Aa'isha but by Ubayy ibn Ka`b and he did not attribute it to the Prophet (PBUH). In addition, it is not in any of the six books, but Al-Albaani rated it authentic and Ibn Katheer rated it sound.

I find it strange that a matter of such importance is never mentioned by the Prophet (PBUH) and reported by none of the top hadeeth reporters.

Based on our discussion off line, here are compelling suggestions for an opening and a closing paragraph of the section about interpreting 2:106.

Opening paragraph: Scholars have had unusually diverse interpretations for 2:106, and that resulted in similarly diverse views about the abrogation doctrine since 2:106 is the cornerstone of that doctrine in many people's mind. It is understandable why knowledgeable and careful scholars would end up having such a diversity of opinions about this particular verse, since the verse employs Arabic words that have more than one distinct meaning. The word "ننسخ" can mean We abrogate, copy, or modify, among other meanings, and the word "آية" can mean a verse (in the Quran, or arguably in other divine scriptures as well) or a compelling sign in general. [We should include concrete examples of interpretations by specific scholars that stem from this multitude of meanings.]

Closing paragraph: Having interpreted 2:106 based on its context in a specific way that sheds light on the abrogation doctrine, we note that the verse sets a general principle whose application in this context may address abrogation, but whose more general interpretation addresses a broader meaning. This fact may be the reason why words were used in the verse that can mean more than one thing. The general principle is that If God chooses to do away with any of His signs, He brings another one that is at least as good. [We should find other examples in the Quran of a similar situation: a general principle set in a verse, that carries a more specific interpretation within the context of that verse.]

This is an argument against interpreting the object of abrogation in 2:106 as the Torah or the Injeel. I am not commenting yet, This is just not to forget the points raised in this writeup (appeared in a facebook post referenced by a tweet)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum